Cases & Developments

The American Council on Education (ACE) wrote a letter to the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, expressing deep concern about the recent announcement that U.S. embassies and consular sections are pausing new student visa interviews to prepare for additional social media screening and vetting. It states that this pause would greatly impede the ability of international students already admitted to colleges and universities to enter the country in a timely manner and pursue their studies. The letter states that there is concern that imposing a broad pause on all student visas would send a message that our nation no longer welcomes international students and scholars, as well as hinder our ability to compete for the world’s best and brightest minds to study in the U.S. The letter also expresses concern about the revocation of student visas beginning with Chinese students who have already been vetted and are completing their education in the U.S. and requests new information on the policy as soon as possible. The letter cites an anticipated economic impact of nearly $44 billion from international students choosing to study in the U.S., emphasizing that an extended pause in scheduling interviews would create harm beyond enrollment numbers, and encourages the State Department to make any pause on student visa processing as short as possible.  

Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. Plaintiff, the President and Fellows of Harvard College allege that defendants, the United States Department of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security; United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Todd Lyons, in his official capacity as Acting Director of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Student and Exchange Visitor Program; John Doe, in their official capacity as Director of the Student and Exchange Visitor Program; James Hicks, in his official capacity as Deputy Assistant Director of the Student and Exchange Visitor Program; United States Department of Justice; Pamela Bondi, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the United States; United States Department of State; and Marco Rubio, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Plaintiff alleges that the Department of State, revoked plaintiff’s Student Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification without process or cause, impacting over 7,000 visa holders. Plaintiff alleges this revocation is a blatant violation of the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Plaintiff asked that the Court declare defendants’ action revoking plaintiff’s SEVP certification unconstitutional and/or unlawful because it violated the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and the APA; and as remedy to preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants, their agents, and anyone acting in concert or participation with defendants from (1) implementing, instituting, maintaining, or giving effect to the unlawful revocation of plaintiff’s SEVP certification, (2) giving any force or effect to the Department of Homeland Security’s May 22, 2025, “Revocation Notice,” and (3) issuing a “Notice of Intent to Withdraw” or otherwise initiating proceedings to withdraw plaintiff’s SEVP certification in retaliation for plaintiff’s exercise of its rights under the First Amendment, because of the viewpoint of plaintiff’s First Amendment protected speech, or because of plaintiff’s refusal to comply with the April 11 demand letter. The Court granted a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), finding plaintiff made a sufficient showing that absent the TRO it will sustain immediate and irreparable injury before there is an opportunity to hear from all parties, and the TRO was justified to preserve the status quo pending a hearing. Thus, it enjoined defendants from implementing, instituting, maintaining, or giving effect to the revocation of plaintiff’s SEVP certification and from giving any force or effect to the Department of Homeland Security’s May 22, 2025, revocation notice. Plaintiff’s complaint can be found here.  

Order Granting Motions for Preliminary Injunctions and Setting Case Management Conferences. Set of consolidated cases where plaintiffs, several foreign nationals admitted to the United States through the Student Visitor and Exchange Program (SEVP) who learned that their status in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) was changed from active to terminated, sought preliminary injunctive relief against Donald J. Trump, in his official  capacity as President of the United States, Kristi Noem, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Todd M. Lyons, in his official capacity as Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Moises Becerra, in his official capacity as Acting Field Office Director of ICE’s San Francisco Office of Detention and Removal. Plaintiffs alleged defendants violated the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in changing plaintiffs’ SEVIS status. Finding in plaintiffs’ favor, the Court reasoned that “defendants’ argument that there is a distinction between having an active SEVIS record and maintaining lawful F-1 status is unpersuasive and unsupported by the record. By terminating plaintiffs’ SEVIS records, defendants altered plaintiffs’ legal status within the United States . . . the Court does not find it speculative to conclude that, in the absence of an injunction, defendants would abruptly re-terminate SEVIS records without notice.” In granting plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction, the Court also enjoined defendants from arresting and incarcerating any of the named plaintiffs in the consolidated cases and similarly situated individuals nationwide; from transferring any of the named plaintiffs in these cases and similarly situated individuals nationwide from outside the jurisdiction of their residence pending the resolution of the proceedings; from imposing any adverse legal effect on any named parties in these cases and similarly situated individuals nationwide that otherwise may be caused by the termination of their SEVIS record; and from reversing the reinstatement of the SEVIS record of plaintiffs in these cases and similarly situated individuals nationwide who maintain status under 8 C.F.R. 

Order and Opinion Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Following the Court granting plaintiffs’ amended motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), it directed defendants to reinstate plaintiffs’ student status and SEVIS authorization, retroactive to March 31, 2025, and considered whether to convert the TRO into a preliminary injunction. To effectuate the latter, plaintiffs must establish that they have a: (1) substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted; (3) that the threatened injury to the movant outweighs the damage to the opposing party; and (4) that granting the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. Based upon the allegations of the Amended Complaint and the specific facts in plaintiffs’ 133 declarations, the Court found that plaintiffs demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claim and that defendants’ termination of the SEVIS registration exceeded the bounds of statutory and regulatory authority and was therefore unlawful. In concluding that defendants’ actions were both arbitrary and capricious, the Court reasoned that defendants failed to suggest any lawful grounds for termination of the SEVIS record and plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their claim that the agency failed to articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. The Court also found that absent temporary relief, plaintiffs demonstrated that they face several forms of irreparable harm, including losses in scholarships, career opportunities, research grants, access to education, and the ability to apply for optional practical training (OPT). As to the balance of harms, the Court concluded that plaintiffs stand to lose their lawful status, access to education, and future career prospects, but by contrast, the temporary nature of the interim relief poses minimal harm to defendants; reasoning that there is substantial public interest in ensuring government agencies abide by federal laws even when they pursue their policy prerogatives.  

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiffs, Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste (PCUN), the largest Latinx organization in the state of Oregon, Augustana Lutheran Church, Our Lady of Guadalupe Parish, San Francisco Interfaith Council, and Westminster Presbyterian Church allege that defendants, Kristi Noem, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Todd Lyons, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Pete Flores, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection enacted an unconstitutional and unlawful policy that violates the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). On January 20, 2025, Acting DHS Secretary Benjamine Huffman issued a memo eliminating the “protected areas” designation and prohibition on ICE enforcement in those areas (the “Huffman Memo”), which was followed further on January 21, 2025, when former Acting ICE Director Caleb Vitello issued a memo entitled “Common Sense Enforcement Actions in or Near Protected Areas” charging ICE Assistant Field Office Directors (AFODs) and Assistant Special Agents in Charge (ASACs) with determining whether, where, and when to conduct immigration enforcement in or near a protected area/sensitive locations (such as the premises of schools, places of worship, funerals, and other religious ceremonies) (the “Vitello Memo”). Plaintiffs allege that defendants’ choice to end protections for sensitive locations has harmed plaintiffs and protected areas themselves. Plaintiffs allege that following the revocation of protections for sensitive locations, many entities such as schools, daycares, medical facilities, foodbanks, community-based organizations, social services agencies, and places of worship serving large immigrant populations witnessed a decline in the number of people attending events and seeking services which has impaired the entities’ missions and abilities to provide community care. Plaintiffs allege that defendants’ actions violated the APA by way of being arbitrary and capricious, being contrary to constitutional rights, and that defendants have violated both the RFRA and the First Amendment. Plaintiffs ask that the Court issue an order declaring defendants’ rescission of protections for sensitive locations (1) unconstitutional, void, and of no effect, and (2) violative of RFRA; and further to find that the Huffman Memo is unlawful because it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” and thus, to vacate the Huffman Memo in its entirely, enjoin defendants from taking any immigration enforcement actions that are not authorized in accordance with the historical 2021 “Mayorkas Memo” that accorded especial consideration of immigration enforcement in so called sensitive locations. 

Class Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiffs, several students affected by defendants’ termination of F-1 student status and proposed class members allege that defendants, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), ICE’s Boston Field Office, ICE’s Manchester Subfield Office, Kristi Noem, and Todd Lyons unilaterally and unlawfully terminated plaintiffs’ F-1 student status. As of April 11, 2025, plaintiffs allege that at least 112 students’ F-1 status had been terminated based on Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) termination. Plaintiffs allege that the description of the SEVIS termination reason was changed from “failure to maintain status” to “other” which is a new category on the SEVIS website as of April 9, 2025. Plaintiffs allege that defendants’ actions are a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as they are arbitrary and capricious and are a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs ask that the Court assume jurisdiction over the matter; certify the case as a class action; declare that defendants’ termination of plaintiffs’ and class members’ F-1 student status violate the APA and plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment due process rights and issue a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring defendants to reinstate the F-1 student status and corresponding SEVIS immigration record for all students at any education institutions in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maine, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico who had their F-1 student status terminated and had their SEVIS immigration record correspondingly terminated.